In principle I totally agree, however when you are in a civil war against reactionaries that have expeditionary forces from virtually all imperialist of that time at their side, eliminating potential morale boosts and centres of legitimization (“We have recovered the tsarevich from the hands of the filthy judeo-bolshevics and will fight to the death for him to reclaim his rightful throne” e.g.) is (unfortunately) a purely pragmatical matter…
In principle I totally agree, however when you are in a civil war against reactionaries that have expeditionary forces from virtually all imperialist of that time at their side, eliminating potential morale boosts and centres of legitimization (“We have recovered the tsarevich from the hands of the filthy judeo-bolshevics and will fight to the death for him to reclaim his rightful throne” e.g.) is (unfortunately) a purely pragmatical matter…
Forgive me for finding “These children living might encourage our enemies” insufficient inducement to cold-blooded murder. Any other ‘pragmatic’ solutions of murdering children you want to endorse? “Nits make lice” from American genocidaires against Native tribes? Or perhaps Zionists murdering Palestinian children for signaling support for anti-Zionism?
Where did I say anything about my assessment being universal all of a sudden? It was regarding a very specific context of that very singular time. You are not responding in good faith here IMO, building your own strawman and then arguing against it…
I can’t even think of any other situation about which I would say something even remotely similar.
(BTW, just to give a bit more historical context: it wasn’t even a decision by the central government, but of a local Soviet which had to act quickly as they were encroached by the whites.)
You are not responding in good faith here IMO, building your own strawman and then arguing against it…
I’m not arguing in good faith because I’m pointing out that the very basis of your argument could be used to justify any number of ‘pragmatic’ atrocities, and “This time it was okay because the murderers were wearing my favorite shade of red” is not a very convincing principle for exemption?
I can’t even think of any other situation about which I would say something even remotely similar.
That should set off alarm bells in your head.
If you can’t think of any situation where you would apply a similar or the same principle, then perhaps you should re-examine on what basis you’re justifying the Romanov family’s situation. On a pre-existing principle of pragmatism? Or operating from the preconception that the murder was correct, and then working backwards to find a justification?
(BTW, just to give a bit more historical context: it wasn’t even a decision by the central government, but of a local Soviet which had to act quickly as they were encroached by the whites.)
It’s widely suspected, including by Trotsky (who approved), that Lenin gave the order. Regardless of who gave the order, it was fucking atrocious and not worth murdering children in cold-blood just to keep the survival of a fucking child from being a ‘propaganda victory’ for the enemy.
If you can’t think of any situation where you would apply a similar or the same principle, then perhaps you should re-examine on what basis you’re justifying the Romanov family’s situation. On a pre-existing principle of pragmatism? Or operating from the preconception that the murder was correct, and then working backwards to find a justification?
On the basis that I cannot recall a situation in which – in my opinion – progressive revolutionaries should have strayed from the principle of rehabilitation and avoiding harming innocents
Edit. when taken out of the context of the conversation, this might look like I’m contradicting myself. What it means: no such situation except as the one I described in the conversation prior
On the basis that I cannot recall a situation in which – in my opinion – progressive revolutionaries should have strayed from the principle of rehabilitation and avoiding harming innocents
Yes exactly, because no other such peculiar situation as I have described has happened to progressive revolutionaries AFAIK. Is that so hard to understand?
Yes exactly, because no other such peculiar situation as I have described has happened to progressive revolutionaries AFAIK.
… you think… foreign invaders attempting to re-instate the old dynasty on the throne during a civil war over progressive revolution… is a peculiar situation that had never happened before or since the Russian Civil War?
Are you fucking serious right now?
Is that so hard to understand?
It is extremely hard to understand why you insist that it’s unique, yes.
Yekaterinburg was about to be captured by the whites, that’s my whole point. The situation in the ground is complementary to the overarching political one
In principle I totally agree, however when you are in a civil war against reactionaries that have expeditionary forces from virtually all imperialist of that time at their side, eliminating potential morale boosts and centres of legitimization (“We have recovered the tsarevich from the hands of the filthy judeo-bolshevics and will fight to the death for him to reclaim his rightful throne” e.g.) is (unfortunately) a purely pragmatical matter…
Forgive me for finding “These children living might encourage our enemies” insufficient inducement to cold-blooded murder. Any other ‘pragmatic’ solutions of murdering children you want to endorse? “Nits make lice” from American genocidaires against Native tribes? Or perhaps Zionists murdering Palestinian children for signaling support for anti-Zionism?
Where did I say anything about my assessment being universal all of a sudden? It was regarding a very specific context of that very singular time. You are not responding in good faith here IMO, building your own strawman and then arguing against it…
I can’t even think of any other situation about which I would say something even remotely similar.
(BTW, just to give a bit more historical context: it wasn’t even a decision by the central government, but of a local Soviet which had to act quickly as they were encroached by the whites.)
I’m not arguing in good faith because I’m pointing out that the very basis of your argument could be used to justify any number of ‘pragmatic’ atrocities, and “This time it was okay because the murderers were wearing my favorite shade of red” is not a very convincing principle for exemption?
That should set off alarm bells in your head.
If you can’t think of any situation where you would apply a similar or the same principle, then perhaps you should re-examine on what basis you’re justifying the Romanov family’s situation. On a pre-existing principle of pragmatism? Or operating from the preconception that the murder was correct, and then working backwards to find a justification?
It’s widely suspected, including by Trotsky (who approved), that Lenin gave the order. Regardless of who gave the order, it was fucking atrocious and not worth murdering children in cold-blood just to keep the survival of a fucking child from being a ‘propaganda victory’ for the enemy.
On the basis that I cannot recall a situation in which – in my opinion – progressive revolutionaries should have strayed from the principle of rehabilitation and avoiding harming innocents
Edit. when taken out of the context of the conversation, this might look like I’m contradicting myself. What it means: no such situation except as the one I described in the conversation prior
Except wrt the Romanov family, it would seem.
Yes exactly, because no other such peculiar situation as I have described has happened to progressive revolutionaries AFAIK. Is that so hard to understand?
… you think… foreign invaders attempting to re-instate the old dynasty on the throne during a civil war over progressive revolution… is a peculiar situation that had never happened before or since the Russian Civil War?
Are you fucking serious right now?
It is extremely hard to understand why you insist that it’s unique, yes.
Yekaterinburg was about to be captured by the whites, that’s my whole point. The situation in the ground is complementary to the overarching political one